About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 28
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28
was meandering toward ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put something together, such as a timetable for withdrawal. all obama has to do, and i know it is not that simple, but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came in 1985, he gave a speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan as a bleeding wound. he had secretly told schultz at the military was going to get one year to turn it around. and that they wouldn't be able to. he announced a timetable, and then he was gone and 89. we need to do something similar, the military had its chances, we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years, take a look at this book by the general, which devotes a lot of attention to this. that is not a war where we can be successful. that is not in the military we have. there is no military that has ever been successful with counterinsurgency. not only that, but they have an ally in pakistan where we survived with bil
into words and the the war afghanistan and he's allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon you are looking at an institution that has defined motor skills and a dinosaur. if you take the pentagon a long time to put something together all but obama has to do and i know it isn't this simple but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came out of 1985 he gave the secret speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan to his fellow bureau colleagues as a bleeding wound he had the moxie secretly tell shultz we were getting out that the military was going to get one year to turnaround and the wouldn't feel to. they announced a timetable and they were gone. we need to do something similar. they had their chances we had 11 commanders and afghanistan in 11 years take a look at thomas rex book the generals that devotes a lot of attention to this isn't a war we can be successful and the kind of military we have. there is no military that had ever been successful in the counterinsurgency where they have a sanctuary. not only did it have a sanctuary but in outlinin
serve and the defense policy board of the pentagon as co-chairman of the president's intelligence advisory board, not to mention all the things that have been said about his service in vietnam and his heroism as an enlisted man. so i think -- i understand that people disagree with his position on certain issues and therefore everybody has the right to vote in the way it they say, but the concern that i have is the suggestion that this man who has served his country really since he was a young man and it listed in vietnam is not qualified to be the secretary of defense, i think is just not accurate and reflects certainly a different understanding of his background and his experience that i have. so i intend to vote for him. think he will be an excellent secretary of defense, and the help of we will confirm of. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it think the members of the committee. first, let me say up front that i think all of us deeply respect the senators service to his country in vietnam and service in this body. we know that there are always difficult decision
are to buy the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that miss. that is bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war but infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave them a military briefing for the alicia pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things fly into windows. that was the percentage actually expended. so i don't think this is a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration of just how proficient the united states was in waging war, especially can do this proficient adversary. but it also is a military affairs in a fundamentalist about is the car still has a boat here and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and therefore the military plan made that involve smart and weapons were designed with a traditional military conclusion, which in truth is not revolutionary at all, getting the enemy to do what she wanted. i can't see it as fares. and getting assigned from the back right of time, but i do want to give -- >> yet, let randy
the organization would fallen apart. think about any organization. i work until the pentagon it would have made it better. so -- [laughter] we realize the you have to go after the people who do the work. the people who do logistics, communications, pass information, build car bombs, communicate. so you to take them out. so we came out with the strategy. and philadelphia love this. it's like rocky and apollo. we're going hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 rides, two years later, same month, same force, same fight we were doing 300 raids a month. that's ten a night. now, if you stop and say you ten a night. that's a lot. that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going a raid at least one every night. every pilot is flying one or two raids every night. and these raids are not patrols inspect is not a -- these are going in the door somebody is getting shot. extraordinary. and to do that, though, you can't use previous systems. one you have to be able to bring in the intelligence on the industrial scale. you have to get to the point w
is taken out does it get worse? i worked at the pentagon, it would have been a lot better. we realize you got to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics', communication, pass information, build car bombs, communicate, take those out so we came up with a strategy. i used to tell people it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we hit them in the midsection and it them aloft. from august of 20 . from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, we doing 300 raids a month, ten a night. every raid guy on the force is going on one raid every night. every pilot is flying one or two raids every night. these raids are not patrols. these are going in the door, someone is getting shot. extraordinary. to do that you can't use previous systems. you have to bring in intelligence on an industrial scale, we got to the point where instead of plastic bags of information on a target we would start to exploit their computers and biometric data, it would be pumped back to west virginia from the target to see if we ever had that person before and if we ever had any dealings with him, we would mov
but the second two points the pentagon did not show you any video the percentage of footprints that were smart well infinitely more than what the iraqis had was small compared to the impression the pentagon gave we're the only showed pictures, that was a tiny percentage. so i don't think this was a revolution as you pointed out just how proficient united states was in waging war with a less proficient adversary. in the more philosophical and fundamental way that the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal so the military planning with the air war were designed with a traditional military conclusion which in truth was not revolutionary at all so i cannot see it in revolutionary affairs i do see we're running at a time by one to give him a chance to comment. >> as i alluded to the revolutionary of military affairs the something that came at the time goldwater nichols was passed to join the military and was all that was talked about back in the '80s and what it meant to me is finally, coming at a vietnam , we had thinkers in the military said said it worked through what it takes to wag
. just this morning, i was over at the pentagon and i took advantage of the opportunity to sit down with the navy's top ship-building official to discuss what the impact of sequestration would be for our naval fleet. well, one example we've already seen. the navy will keep the u.s.s. abraham lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in port rather than repairing and deploying it. across the fleet, the navy is being forced to reduce deployments, maintenance and overhauls for critical repairs. when we look at the ship-building budget, it is evident that sequestration and the continuation of a partial year funding resolution known as the continuing resolution would be absolutely devastating for our navy, for shipbuilding and for our skilled industrial base, and that includes bath ironworks in maine which i'm so proud of which builds the best destroyers in the world. and this has consequences, not only for our work force but also for our national security. it's important to note that secretary panetta has made clear that allowing these sweeping cuts to go into effect would be -- quot
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
alv vast network of oldot colleagues throughout the pentagon bureaucracy. he's reaching out to them.s he deliberately forms a back v channel. he cultivates this woman in the white house named megyn to o'sullivan who is president bush's every chief adviser in the national security council. he sees she's kind of wavering. l security council and seized she is wavering and they're talking on the phone practically every day. this is outrageous. a three-star general from fort wet weather worsened talking on the phone every day with the senior advisor to the president of the united states general casey you is a four-star general commanding troops he says we only need one more brigade so those are arguments why it isn't enough so when it comes, by the way it is not paula bridewell but strictly professional. but subverting the chain of command he always has been off the reservation guy to do what is necessary here but at the same time a civilian analyst used to teach history he rode a steady advocating the surge at the american enterprise institute. said to get this into the warehouse into t
:00 today a secretary of defense. these across-the-board cuts are going to be very difficult. the pentagon needs a leader to oversee and manage historic cuts and ensure they're made in a responsible way. just a minute about senator hagel. he was an enlisted man in the vietnam war. he didn't have to go. he enlisted. the story of senator hagel is not a legend; it's true. he was an heroic warrior, an infantryman. he saved his brother' brother's. when he was a senator -- he saved his brother's life. when he was a senator here, the picture on his wall was of he and his brother in vietnam on a carrier. he's proud of his service. he should be. wounded two times, an infantry squad leader, a man of integrity and dedication. he has a deep understanding of our national security establishment. gained not only from his military service but as a united states no member o senator, meme foreign intelligence committee. he's been a member of the president of the united states's foreign intelligence advise i have board. at a time when america faces so many threats, mr. president, i've outlined just a few of
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
and the pentagon is going to have to scramble to figure out what to do given the budget this year in the middle of the fiscal year. we are five months into it. we have to come back, cut the loops, have longer conversations about how to get a more sensible plan into place. >> host: what is going to happen tomorrow in your district? pc and immediate effect? >> guest: it is really more played out over a series of months. furlough notices that have gone out to a number of employees, but over the next couple of months, i think nobody is really exactly sure what is going to happen. we will begin to see the impacts on possibly fewer employees, tsa, the department of defense, they have to deal it back, they are all across the board. >> host: in regards to a series of editorials this year, a couple of days ago, un- scary sequester was a the headline. yesterday was the sequester revelation. they say even with the sequester, we will spend more money than even we spent last year. >> wow, that is not actually true. we will be spending more money in the federal government. but it is a different type of thing
get it worse? i worked in the pentagon. it would have made it a lot better. so we realized you really have to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics, communications, pass information, do car bombs, you have to take those out. we came up with a strategy, philadelphia would love this. it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we'll hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, two years, later, same month, same force, same fight, we were doing 300 raids a month. that was ten a night. now, if you stop and you say, well, ten a night, that's a lot, that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going on a raid at least one raid every night. every pilot's flying one or 2:00 raids every night. and these raids are not patrols. this is not with foot, these are going in the door, somebody is getting shot. extraordinary, and to do that though you can't use previous systems. one you've got to be able to bring in this intelligence on an industrial scale. you have got to be able -- we got to the point where instead of th
effect. the pentagon needs a seasoned leader to diplomat these cuts, cuts for which an overwhelmingly majority of republicans in congress voted. the so-called sequester, mr. president, was supported by 174 republicans in the house of representatives, 28 republicans here in the senate, 60% and 75% of the two republican bodies in this country. we have a balanced proposal to replace those across-the-board cuts for this year with smart spending reductions which must continue, a measure to close corporate tax loopholes and wasteful subsidies. and revenue from the wealthiest among us, americans making millions of dollars each year. it's critical that the republicans and democrats come together to find a balanced way to avert these drastic cuts. the consequence of the so-called sequester cuts are real not only for national defense but for millions of american families and businesses alike. three-quarters of a million jobs, 750,000 jobs, mr. president, are at stake. across the country tens of thousands of teachers, including thousands of workers with disabled children would be laid off. 70,00
, first of all, the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that missed. that's bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war while infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave in their military briefings where they'd only show pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things flying through windows. that was a very, very tiny percentage of the munitions actually expended. so i don't think this was so much a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration, as you point out, of just how proficient the united states was in waging war especially against a less proficient adversary. but it also was military affairs in a more philosophical, fundamental way, and that is claus wits still has a vote here, and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and, therefore, the military planning and the air war being a classic case in point of this were designed with a traditional military conclusion which in truth was not revolutionary at all which w
a vast network of old colleagues throughout the pentagon bureaucracy. is reaching out to them. he deliberately forms a back channel. he cultivates this woman in the white house named meghan o'sullivan who was president bush's chief adviser on iraq in the national security council. he sees she's waving from the policy, he cultivates her. they're talking on the phone practically every day. now, picture this. this is kind of average. his petraeus, a three-star general in fort leavenworth. is talking on the phone everyday with the senior advisor to the president of united states. she will be asking him, general casey who is a four-star general actually commanding troop in iraq if general casey as we only need one more brigade, what do you think with an petraeus would muster these arguments that she could funnel to her seniors on why this really isn't enough. so, you know, when he comes to washington and meets in restaurants -- by the way, this is not, this is strictly professional. can you imagine, this is someone, essentially subverting the chain of command, getting his own views acr
to get this into the warehouse into the pentagon to some of these subordinates in iraq so basically by the time the trade is becomes the commander everything is lined up to impose a strategy with the united states government this is not a coincidence, it is very exclusively coordinated. what does he do? one thing that is already starting to have been is this is a pivotal moment serial iraq and allied with al qaeda, it goes several steps to fire their getting upset and one to break with al qaeda and there is a criminal named shawn mcfarland to canada this group to switch to our side to fight but the trieste's realizes what is going on to apply this struck the country and does this by setting up a program called the sons of iraq. he pays them out of the commander discretionary fund. with a neighborhood watch those who have been shooting at american's two weeks earlier and at the same time he needs to go after the militia prime minister maliki told the prime minister's day at of sadr city now in some kind of alliance he just send these guys in and does not wait for approval. there is a
it through the bureaucracies of the pentagon. america needs chuck as our secretary of defense to bring our troops home and keep our military the strongest in the world. sergeant hagel was an american hero. when so many americans were dodging the draft he volunteered to serve in vietnam. the draft board gave him the option to return to college but chuck refused. he said i think the best thing for me is to go in the army. it may not be the best thing for the army but i think that's the way to get all this straightened out. yfsz the oldest of four boys, he said, my sphawr passed away and i just was not coming together the way i should. there was a war going on in vietnam, i felt a sense of some responsibility so i said no, i think it's time to go. and so i volunteered for the draft. went in the army and celebrated my 21st birthday in white sands missile range. and chuck didn't serve in a safe bullet. when assigned to germany he volunteered for vietnam and saw the horrors of war as an infrant fantdry sergeant. he hand his brother tom are the only known american brothers to serve side by side i
challenges, that it seems to have united top management at the pentagon into finally realizing how important it is for the department to become financially auditable. indeed, over the last few years, some agencies within the department, like the army corps of engineers, the military retirement fund, the defense contracting audit agency, and tricare's contract management activity, have received clean audit opinions. as g.a.o.'s director of financial management and assurance, asif kahn, recently said, "secretary panetta's directive as resulted in a -- quote -- "change in tone at the top that has reset the department's efforts to achieve an unqualified audit opinion." how would exactly senator hagel, if confirmed, further secretary panetta's efforts here? this is not an academic question. as the department of defense's deputy inspector for auditing, dan blair, recently noted, for the department to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources by 2014, it must run what amounts to -- quote -- "a big checking account, with thousands of people being able to wright checks. and that capturing
of veterans who are entitled to their health care by causing the pentagon possibly to have to reduce or eliminate tricare funding. that's just unconscionable to me. >> host: on the issue of blame that gregory kind of gets into, washington post poll out today asked about a thousand people about where they would assign blame in this sequester issue. 45% assigning it to congressional republicans, 32% to the president, another 13% assigned it equally between the two. about five more minutes of your calls, and we'll be back to the u.s. senate at 2:15 eastern. in california, rodney's on our democrats' line. >> caller: yes. i question the legality of the sequester agreement, because to my understanding sequester is to hold property by judicial authority. the property we're talking about here is the taxpayers' money. since congress has no judicial judicial -- since congress is not a judicial branch of the government with nor do they have judicial power, i don't understand how could they even implement the sequester? >> host: here's a tweet that says the sequester was obama's idea, but it bac
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
. these are decisions that have to be calculated at the pentagon, and the political cost has to be evaluated in the white house. if you're going to do what you have to do fully and effectively. and if you can't have, yeah, can't have an operation. so if you're going to go that route you have to be fully committed to its success. >> please join me in thanking david phillips for a wonderful presentation, a preview of a great book. showing the relevance of your work and your ideas. thank you much. >> thank you, michael. [applause] >> and thank you all for being with us today. >> we are learning today the president obama has accepted the retirement of the longest serving leader of u.s. and nato troops in afghanistan, marine general john allen. he was the president's nominee to be supreme allied commander in europe. that nomination was on hold during a pentagon investigation into e-mails that general our exchange with a civilian woman who was linked to the scandal that forced general david petraeus to resign. general allen has since been cleared of wrongdoing. the "washington post" reporting that
of the partnership that the state department has forms with the pentagon first with bob gates and then mike mullen and then leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remains a valuable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would be quick to add the u.n., the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized, and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short-lived pollutants like black carbon or work with partners like turkey, where the two listed up the first global counterterrorism form. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and th
. i am very proud of the partnership that the state department has formed with the pentagon versus we on panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token americans traditional allies or friends in europe and east asia remain a valuable partner on nearly everything we do. we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would would be clicked to add the u.n. the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and models to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the chi 20 during the financial crisis, or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short lived pollutants like black carbon or worked with partners like turkey where the two of us stood up the first global counterterrorism forum. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and the
. the pentagon budget is expected to be cut to $47 billion over the past month. it is argued that these budget cuts would hurt military readiness. secretary ashton carter, and representatives of each branch of the military have testified. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the impact of sequestration and a full year of continuing resolution on the department of defense. we welcome the deputy secretary of defense, ashton carter, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, who is accompanied by with the following friends. robert hale, chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno, vice chief of operations, mark ferguson, and general james amos, chief of staff of the air force general mark welch and chief of the national guard bureau, general frank grabs. i would like to stop by thanking all of you. please convey our thanks to the soldiers, airmen and marines at home and in harms way around the globe. they and their families deserve our utmost support. some members of congress an
at the pentagon and intelligence advisory board, chuck hagel is uniquely qualified to meet challenges of defense and effort he put into the record many statements in support of senator hagel. this is what he says relative to a rant. iran poses a significant threat. >> please take your conversations outside the chamber. senate will proceed. >> no one talks about position on iran. poses a significant threat to the united states and interest in the region and globally. iran pursues an illicit nuclear program with the threats to provoke a regional arms race. and is fully committed to the quote preventing iran from obtaining new layer but then to achieve that goal and relative to israel, he's a strong supporter of israel, deputy minister he is a good friend of israel and in the word of dna alone says he believes and is not talking a senator hagel in the natural partnership between israel and the united states as part of the volume of defense relations between israel and the united states, which are so important to both countries. now the only question is what we're voting on. what we are voting on he
to their parents sang were having a canned fruit drive, we are in stock if the pentagon every nice thing to do. the kid takes the note home. the mom puts the old can't have something in a backpack that's been in the back of the cabinet for the. the kid comes to school with his huge backpack on his back getting scoliosis from it, dumps it into a barrel summer, has no idea why this happens. and we are not creating activism. we are creating pack meals. and still we need to transform our service activities so there's a relational peace. these kids are developing relationships with the people that they are serving. and they're learning to have -- that's just one small example. the trend 13 -- the i. is in transit -- i could go off on this one. i apologize already because i'm bout to take on tbi is because it's one of my pet peeves. tbi this is basically a behaviorist orientation that treats children like pat animals that rewards them with jimmy's and disempowers them. i've got principals and superintendents after telling me, calling me from all over saying it's killing my school. how can i fight a
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28